Born and brought up in a Society informed with democratic ethos and in an
age of great intellectual stir, social dissatisfaction, philosophical
doubt and religious confusion, and deeply influenced by the ethical
tradition of Parsva, Mahavira chose, when he was thirty, the life of an
ascetic seeking after truth and enlightenment. After twelve years of
penance and suffering and rigorous practice of spiritual detachment, he
attained such knowledge as was perfect and absolute, and strove so much
for its redemption that he came to be regarded a Tirthankara. Mahavira
showed wonderful ability in the organization of his Sangha which
consisted of the ascetic as well as the layman, men as well as women. He
did not consider the layman as incapable of spiritual uplift, and.,
therefore, accorded an honorable place to him in the Sangha. The
layman is as important a limb of the Sangha as the ascetic, and it
is incumbent upon both to cooperate and push the Sangha forward
towards spiritual uplift, Mahavira�s Sangha was open to all
irrespective of caste, color and sex. Merit and not birth was the
determinant of status in society. Ability and not sex was regarded as the
criterion of admission into the higher order. Superstitious rituals and
belief in the capacity of gods to help man were discarded. The existence
of God as the Creator of the world was denied, and man was held
responsible for his own fortune as well as misfortune, freedom as well as
bondage. Sacrifice of the animal was replaced by the sacrifice of the
brute self. Mahavira�s life is a symbol of the mortification of the flesh
for the development of the Spirit. It is spiritual joy, and not heavenly
pleasure, that is worth pursuit. Mahavira did not encourage acquisition of
supernormal powers for the victimization of the weak. He prohibited the
use of such powers even for self-protection. He disparaged racial
inequity, economic rivalry and political enslavement. Mahavira took it
upon himself to work out and propagate a veritable spiritual democracy in
the form of Jainism. He delivered his message in the tongue of the people.
He did not like the aristocratic aloofness and mystifying secrecy of the
Brahmanical thinkers in matters religious and philosophical. There
was no need of interpreter of the tongue of gods. There can be no mediator
between man and God. Mahavira popularized philosophy and religion and
threw open the portals of heaven to the down- trodden and the weak, the
humble and the lowly. To him spirituality was not the property of the
privileged few, but a valued possession of each and all. It is only in the
form of human being that the spirit can realize itself. Gods are inferior
to the man of conduct. They symbolize only a stage in the development of
the spirit. The final development, however, is possible only in the human
form. The idea of an ever-free omnipotent Creator God and His incarnation
is exploded as a myth, and the responsibility of creation is put on the
shoulders of those who inhabit and enjoy it. Conduct is judged by the
spiritual law of ahimsa, perfect and absolute. The means is not
justified by the end. It is perhaps with reference to these revolutionary
ideals that a modern critic, informed with the faith in merciful God has
characterized Jainism as �a religion in which the chief insisted upon are
that one should deny God, worship man and nourish vermin.� Philosophy,
with Mahavira, is not an intellectual system based on data supplied by
psychological analysis, or a metaphysical speculation based on scientific
investigation, but an all-comprehensive view based on spiritual
realization wherein all other views find proper justification. These are
in brief, the general features of the message of Lord Mahavira.
The roots of Jainism can be traced out in that floating mass of Sramana
literature which developed side by side with the ancient Vedic and
had, according to Dr. Maurice Winternitz, the following characteristic
features: �It disregards the system of casts and asramas, its
heroes are, as a rule, not gods and Rsis, but kings or merchants or
even Sudras. The subjects of poetry taken up by it are not
Brahmanic myths and legends, but popular tales, fairy stories, fables
and parables, It likes to insist on the misery and suffering of Samsara,
and it teaches a morality of compassion and Ahimsa, quite distinct
from the ethics of Brahmanism with its ideals of the great person
who sacrifices and generous supporter of the priests and its strict
adherence to the caste system.� �Jainism together with Sankhya
Yoga� according to Dr. Hermann Jacobi, �is the earliest representative
of that mental revolution which brought about the close of the Vedic
and inaugurated the new period of Indian culture which has lasted through
the middle ages almost down to the present time.� We can clearly discern
in the formative period, nay, throughout the development, of our culture,
two distinct forces perpetually struggling for supremacy and evolving a
more and more rational culture. Of these two forces, one attracts us to
the spiritual life by insisting on misery and suffering, while the other
strives to keep us attached to the duties and responsibilities of social
life. The advent of Mahavira and the Buddha represents a period of
supremacy of the former over the later. This period was, of course,
preceded by a long period of philosophical ferment and religious unrest.
There was strenuous search for the ideal. Two distinct ways of thought,
Brahmanic and Sramanic were struggling for supremacy and were
influencing each other. It was impossible that one should supersede the
other. But they evolved a system, which had a strong note of asceticism
and was predominantly Sramanic. This was embodied in the
Caturyama dharma of Parsva and finally developed by Mahavira
into what is called Jainism, Buddhism too is a similar, though decidedly
later, growth with a wonderfully rational outlook: The investigations
about the antiquity of Jainism are by no means complete. We look to an
intense research for more enlightenment.
We have discussed at some length the story of Gosala�s companionship and
final separation with Mahavira. The story of his last encounter with
Mahavira has also been related. We have shown the non-tenability of the
fanciful opinion of some scholars that Mahavira was a disciple of Gosala
for some time. Our conclusion is that Mahavira and Gosala did not have a
teacher and disciple relationship at all. Mahavira and Gosala were just
two associates in a common concern, two: Sadhakas who lived
together for six years in asceticism. Later on there sprang up acute
differences of opinion between the two. They separated from each other and
became irreconcilable opponents, fighting out their differences generally
through their followers. After six months from the separation with
Mahavira, it is said, Gosala acquired supernormal powers, proclaimed
himself a Jina, and founded the order of the Ajivikas. It is
also probable that the order of the Ajivika was already there and
Gosala only assumed its leadership proclaiming himself the last Jina.
The implication of the doctrine of �seven re-animation�s� advocated by
Gosala is not very clear; most probably Gosala referred to the six past
leaders of the order, and considered himself to be the seventh and the
last. The problem is to be studied afresh, and there is every possibility
of fruitful result. There is, however, no ambiguity about the central
doctrine of Gosala. he was an uncompromising fatalist. For him there was
no such thing as freedom of will, all things being caused by destiny which
was unalterably fixed. This contrasts strongly with Mahavira�s ideal of
nirvana as something to be achieved by toil and labor, and not something
to be presented by destiny in due course. There is neither scope nor
necessity for voluntary efforts in the system of Gosala. We do not know
whether the Ajivika order served him for long in its original shape,
although a reference to an Ajivika order is found in an inscription of as
late as the thirteenth century A.D.
The Jaina doctrine of knowledge is assuredly a valuable contribution to
the epistemological thought. Knowledge is inherent in soul and depends for
its expression upon the dis-entanglement of the soul from the forces that
vitiate its intrinsic capacities. The Kasayas of attachment and aversion
are held responsible for the obstruction of the capacity to know, and it
is by the total destruction of these Kasayas that the soul achieves �the
blaze of omniscience�. Absolute annihilation of knowledge is impossible,
and the knowledge is not at its minimum in the one-sensed organism.
Perfection is achieved not by adding one knowledge to another, but by
removing the cause of imperfection, which consists in the Kasayas.
Ignorance is only an incidental effect of a more fundamental cause,
namely, the Karma that blurs the right intuition.
The Karma doctrine is another glorious achievement of the Jaina thinkers.
Karma is a substantive force, a sort of infra-atomic particles which have
the peculiar property of developing the effects of merit and demerit. �As
heat can unite with iron and water with milk, so Karma unites with the
soul.� Life is a struggle between spirit and matter. The material body is
to be subdued by matter. Evolution means evolution of the body. The body
is the instrument of expression, and so the perfection of the spirit is
synchronized with the perfection of the body. What controls the universe
is the law of Karma. The world is made, not by gods and angels, but
by the Karma of the spirits. The history of man is determined by his own
voluntary choice. Man enters the world of his own creation and fashions it
according to his own designs. He can transcend the inherited limitations
by his will and action, and become the architect of his own future. The
theory of fourteen states in the ascent to the state of Final Liberation
is the logical consummation of the doctrine of Karma.
Indian religions lay stress on asceticism and life negation, and Jainism
does so in a special measure. Jainism prescribes even the abandonment of
the body in case it fails to fulfill the demand of the spirit. This
exposes Jainism to the charge that its ethics is negative and passive. The
Jaina ethics will plead guilty to this charge. The motive behind ethical
practices is that of purging the soul of selfish impulses so that it may
realize itself. Spiritual strenuous, meditation, the freeing of the mind
from hatred, anger and lust are emphasized. What appears to be passivity
is intense concentration of consciousness where the soul lays hold
immediately upon itself. Life affirmation is fraught with more dangers and
pitfalls than those of life negation. If affirmation leads to progress,
negation certainly leads to peace. World has suffered more at the hands of
the progress-loving peoples than at the hands of the peace-loving nations.
Jainism discourages aggressiveness, but never supports cowardice. Peaceful
courting of death without hatred for the murderer is more praiseworthy
than violent defense. The law of non-violence is regarded as the supreme
law. Justice itself is judged by this law. Consistent application of this
universal law of non-violence in practical life exposed Jainism to the
ridicule of those who were satisfied merely with the theoretical extolling
of the law. Its appeal to the rational minds, however, was great and
gradually it gripped a considerable portion of the populace.
Our study of the position of the rival sects has been very brief. We have
annexed a short note on Nihnavas in order to show the inherent
strength of the organization of the Jaina Sangha to deal with
internal dissentions.
Mahavira left the world, realized the
truth, and came back to the world to preach it. There was immediate
response from the people and he got disciples and followers. Eleven
learned Brahmins were the first to accept his discipleship and became
ascetics. They were the heads of Ganas, of ascetics. They were the
heads of Ganas, of ascetics, and as such were called Ganadharas.
They remained faithful to their teacher throughout their lives. Indrabhuti
Gautama was the eldest disciple of Mahavira. He was very fond of his
master, and had numerous interesting dialogues with him. Mahavira was
never tired of answering questions and problems of various types,
scientific, ethical, metaphysical, and religious. He had broad outlook and
scientific accuracy. His answers were never vague or mystifying. He had
firm conviction and resolute will. His tolerance was infinite. He remained
unmoved, when two of his disciples were burnt to ashes before his eyes by
Gosala, who was then preparing to strike Mahavira himself. But he would
never surrender a single point in argument about spiritual conviction and
ethical conduct. Right conduct is conduct according to right conviction.
Right conviction is conviction based on spiritual realization. A man of
right conviction and right conduct has fear from none and tolerance for
all. Mahavira always surrendered his body, but never his spirit. Retention
of the spirit demands surrender of the body. Suffering and penance are the
conditions of freedom. Mahavira was a cold realist. He had not faith in
warm idealism. He had immense faith in human nature, but he always
insisted on vigilance against indolence, physical, moral and spiritual. He
is reported to have once exhorted his favorite disciple Indrabhuti Gautama
to always retain strenuosness in the following words: You have well- nigh
crossed the great ocean. Why do you loiter on the shore? Make haste to
pass on to the other side. Do not be indolent, O Gautama, for a single
moment.� Inward strenuosness and affirmation of spirit is sometimes
associated with outward passivity and negation of life. This is not
non-understandable. Life is an evil so long as it is rooted in desires.
Negation of life rooted in desires is not an unsocial act. It is but
reinstatement of the society in harmony with the laws of the spirit. It is
self-contradiction on the surface for the sake of self-realization in the
depth. In this sense, individualism is not incompatible with social
progress. Mahavira was never indifferent to the well- being of his
Sangha. He worked strenuously for and took interest in the most minute
details of the organization. One is amazed to find in him this rare
combination of absolute negation of desires and immense interest in
action. Mahavira was neither a �delicate mystic� nor an �energetic
prophet.� He was a thoroughgoing rationalist who would base his action on
his conviction, unmindful of the context of established custom or
inherited tradition. This is the keynote of the personality of Lord
Mahavira.